"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[panevino]

Hi Ed,

regarding my previous post copied below

i know, i know…

its not that I think it automatically water always means ‘baptism’
but all these direct/explicit links of water to life/saving/baptism/holy
are so much more convincing when applied to jesus words in john 3:5
than the denominations that say no
jesus did not mean literal water he meant
birth from flesh/womb (based on the verses that describe a sea of people)

and I am not convinced about the flesh in john 3:6 as a back up for this interpretation.
(ie: as i’v asked b4 - wouldn’t it of been easier for him to say in john 3:5 born of flesh and spirit)

i definately see john 3:6 is all about the conflict between a person struggles in ways of flesh and spirit that is expressed in other verses including jesus.

Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

john 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

gal 6:8 … For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

my interpretation of John 3:5 and literal water
and john 3:6 being a contrast between ways of flesh and spirit
is refelcted clearly in

Ez 36:25- (KJV)
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

do you agree its an interesting parallel

rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by krakee

Really Ed!?! You would deny the 3rd chapter of John’s Gospel because a Catholic read it to you? I think the problem here is you Ed. Do the words somehow come out differently when a Catholic reads the Bible? They’re the same words written on the page Ed.

Do you know what you just did Ed? You proved that one cannot just read (or be read to) the Scriptures without forming an interpretation. I simply asked you if a Catholic Priest read it to you would you believe it. Your answer was an exclaimed No! Very telling. This contradicts your earlier declaration that what you state here is NOT your PERSONAL interpretation. If the same words can be believable when read by one person but not believable when read by another than one has to conclude that what you state IS your personal interpretation.

The question is simple. Are you, Ed, an infallible interpreter of Scripture? Yes or No

Why are you so bent all of shape.I never said that I denied John 3, I deny the Catholic interpretation of it. When I say these are NOT my PERSONAL interpretation, I’m simply saying that others agree with what I had posted.

Concerning the infallibility questions, NO! I’m not infallible and I don’t believe any one is including any of your popes. There’s nothing in Scripture that tells us to believe that! In fact, Peter was called by Jesus 'dull" and “satan”, denied Jesus three times and Paul had to rebuke him.

Condider this:
In the fifteenth century there were men who each claimed to be pope. Later the three were all deposed by the Council of Constance. Yet, pope Gregory XII one of the three is listed on official lists as a legitimate popes------In compliance with Trent, pope Sixtus V, set up a commision to revive the Vulgate but, impatient with its progress, took the task into his own hands and published on May 2,1590, a version so full blunders that it had to be withdrawn. But a copy of it still exists in a Lodon museum.------If I told you that I once was Santa Clause without any official documentation to back up that claim, would you believe me?

Out of courtesy, I responded to your first post, but hereafter don’t expect me to respond to three full pages of posts which has little to do with this thread. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by panevino
Hi Ed,

regarding my previous post copied below

my interpretation of John 3:5 and literal water
and john 3:6 being a contrast between ways of flesh and spirit
is refelcted clearly in

Ez 36:25- (KJV)
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

do you agree its an interesting parallel

rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Hi panevino. Yes I agree that it is an interesting parallel. However when you do as you do above, you can make the Bible say anything that you want it to say, Exp. Mat 27:5, “Judas went and hanged himself.” then a parallel to that in Luke 10:37,“Go do likewise”.

What your doing is jerking verses out of the context of the chapter which in plain English is a NO! NO!

Read John 3:3 through 10 and see if you get that same parallel. God Bless! ED O.

P.S. Panevino Ezk 36:25, did that happen already in the past or is that going to take place in the future? I’m, curious to know what is your answer.

 

[panevino]

Hi panevino. Yes I agree that it is an interesting parallel. However when you do as you do above, you can make the Bible say anything that you want it to say, Exp. Mat 27:5, “Judas went and hanged himself.” then a parallel to that in Luke 10:37,“Go do likewise”.

What your doing is jerking verses out of the context of the chapter which in plain English is a NO! NO!

sorry Ed don’t mean to be rude
but to interpret water in John 3:5 to physical birth
is by far the greater version of what u acuse me of

Read John 3:3 through 10 and see if you get that same parallel. God Bless! ED O.
.

I will again, busy at moment.

Can u let me know ur thoughs to my interpretation of john3:6

 

[EdOsiecki]

QUOTE]Posted by izoid
It is often helpful to look to scripture to help us understand scripture. We can compare several verses and see what is being said. Now, the verses I refer to are all cross referenced to each other in my Bile so we can safely believe that they are parallel verses.
In the verses below, we clearly see a three fold parallelism; water, sprit and salvation. Titus 3:5 is clearly speaking of water baptism, even Calvin agrees to this (Institutes 4, 15, 5). While his conclusions are not the Catholic conclusion, he does affirm that Titus s speaking of baptism.

John 3:5
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Titus 3:5
5 He saved us,not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

We can then look to other verses for support.

1 Peter 3:21
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

By being “water” baptized are sins forgiven and is a person saved (born again)? ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by panevino
sorry Ed don’t mean to be rude
but to interpret water in John 3:5 to physical birth
is by far the greater version of what u acuse me of

I will again, busy at moment.

Can u let me know ur thoughs to my interpretation of john3:6

I apologize, I didn’t intend to be rude. If you read what I posted on 886, I explain in detail to Kevin what you are asking here. ED O.

 

[The_Ambassador]

You might want to read Calvin regarding this, he disagrees with you on Titus 3:5.

Calvin was a giant of the faith, but he is not Christ, nor the Holy Spirit.

Calvin was a great scholar, who was used mightily of the LORD, but nevertheless he was still a man. Calvin received much light on certain biblical issues that were in dire need of being brought to light in his day. This does not mean that he therefore was infallible in all of his interpretations.

And so although I do repect him, and hold him in high esteem, I nevertheless reserve the right to seek the Scriptures afresh concerning everything he, and all the rest of the godly men of the past, have handed down to us.

This is simply the responsible thing to do, as we are commanded by the Scriptures to “test all things, and hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thes. 5:21).

I take this exhortation seriously, for the apostle Paul actually commended the Bereans for putting *his very own teachings *to the test. “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11)

Paul also gave us strict warning to guard against the religious tendencies of putting one man over against another. He commanded us never to put any man, for that matter, above that which is written. “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, so that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6).

But thank you for you comment!

 

[The_Ambassador]

John 3:5
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Where is baptism in this passage? The water is referring to the word of God, that cleansing agent which sanctifies sinners (Eph. 5:25; John 15:3; 17:3).

Titus 3:5
5 He saved us,not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.

Where is baptism in this passage? Regeneration is the new birth, but where is baptism? It is not there, and as a matter of fact, water is not even mentioned in the passage. The washing element in this passage, instead of being water, is the Holy Ghost Himself. Water is not mentioned, only a washing of the New Birth, which, according to 1 Pet. 1:23 and James 1:18 takes place through the word of God.

1 Peter 3:21
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now the problem with using this is that the way in which it was written demonstrates that Peter was obviously well aware that his words are open to dangerous misuse.

This is why, as soon as they are out of his mouth, as it were, he qualifies them by the paranthetical statement, lest we take them the wrong way. You seem to have missed that entirely.

In verse 21 he does say, “Baptism now saves you” - and because that sounds like the water has a saving effect in and of itself, he adds immediately, “Not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

So the point is this: “When I speak of baptism saving,” Peter is saying, “I don’t mean that the water, immersing the body and cleansing the flesh, is of any saving effect; what I mean is that, *insofar as baptism is *“an appeal to God for a good conscience,” (or is “a pledge of a good conscience toward God”), it saves.”

Baptism is simply an expression of the heart’s “appeal to God.” Baptism is a calling on God. It is a way of saying to God with our whole body, “I trust you to take me into Christ like Noah was taken into the ark, and to make Jesus the substitute for my sins and to bring me through these waters of death and judgment into new and everlasting life through the resurrection of Jesus my Lord.”

This is the sense that I get from the text.

And besides, where is the new birth? To equate salvation and the new birth is to do damage to the integrity of the Scriptures as a whole.

Mark 1:4
4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Again, where is the New birth? A baptism of repentance is performed *on the grounds of *what Christ has done for us on the cross - namely providing redemption for the forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7).

Acts 2:38
38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

No new birth mentioned . . . again. You really need to stay disciplined in your word studies, especially when attempting to demonstrate scriptural parallelism. This list is sloppy, because there is no correlation to the new birth running through these passages.

Being baptize for the forgiveness of sins is a wonderful thing.

But are we forgiven because we are baptized, or are we baptized because we are forgiven?

It all depends on how you understand the term “for.”

We are baptized [because we have been] forgiven our sins - (Protestant view) :yup:

Or we are baptized [in order that we might be] forgiven our sins - (Catholic view) :nope:

The term “for” can either refer to the idea of “in order that” or it can refer to the idea “because of” or “on the grounds of.” Both are used in Scripture. The debate then, comes down to how Peter meant it, and how Luke is using this term in Acts 2:38.

Here is another example of the different ways in which we can understand this term:

Jesse James is wanted “for” robbery.

This could mean that he is wanted *because he has *committed robbery - (the Protestant view) :yup:

Or this could mean that he is wanted *in order that he might *commit a robbery - (the Catholic view). :nope:

 

[panevino]

I apologize, I didn’t intend to be rude. If you read what I posted on 886, I explain in detail to Kevin what you are asking here. ED O.

Don’t apologies Ed I think u misunderstood what i wrote.
I read ur post 886
it did not include a response to my interpretation of John 3:6

what is your opinion of my interpretation of the flesh/spirit discussion.
It makes relates to the rebirth of the person from ways of flesh to spirit.
As alluded to in several verses.

 

[panevino]

I apologize, I didn’t intend to be rude. If you read what I posted on 886, I explain in detail to Kevin what you are asking here. ED O.

Don’t apologies Ed I think u misunderstood what i wrote.
I read ur post 886
it did not include a response to my interpretation of John 3:6

what is your opinion of my interpretation of the flesh/spirit discussion.
It makes relates to the rebirth of the person from ways of flesh to spirit.
As alluded to in several verses.

See my post 892

 

[krakee]

Ed,

Thank you, but you still haven’t answered if you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture. You answered that YOU are not infallible but I was asking about your interpretation. Is your INTERPRETATION of Scripture infallible? Can I conclude that’s a no?

If we don’t establish authority, we’re just left with a bunch of hot air… and I did eat beans tonight. Sorry if my posts are long, perhaps you’d like to continue this privately instead. Either way is fine with me. What you responded to was the latter part of my “three full pages of posts” which I already acknowledged you have plenty to juggle here. I don’t envy, but look up to you. You are blessed with the gift of persistence. Please keep it up and one day, my separated brother in Christ, we might find ourselves standing side by side in this ever-growing fight against atheism. If this was your last post to me than I look forward to standing WITH you in the future. God bless you my new friend. With that said let’s test each other shall we?

Why are you so bent all of shape.I never said that I denied John 3, I deny the Catholic interpretation of it. When I say these are NOT my PERSONAL interpretation, I’m simply saying that others agree with what I had posted.

Big mistake with your clarification Ed. Now you probably didn’t realize it but yes you did deny John chapter 3. Go back and re-read my question with your answer. I asked you if a Catholic Priest READ you that chapter (like you said they were instructed to do by Paul) would you believe him and you said “No!”

But your new clarification of it is even more revealing. So basically what you’re saying is if “others agree with what you had posted” than it’s “NOT your PERSONAL interpretation”. Well than you just proved that we as Catholics do NOT use our own PERSONAL interpretation either since there are billions (if not more) that agree with what we post.

You’ve just acknowledged, using your own theology, that the Catholic interpretation is correct. You didn’t realize that did you? So basically, according to Ed, if there are 2 or more people who agree upon an interpretation, than it must to be correct right? What if those 2 or more people spark even a different 2 or more people with their own interpretation. And than those 2 or more people form yet their own interpretations that sparks 2 or more people to come up with their own interpretations. What are we left with??? Sound like Protestantism. Please clarify Ed.

We must find an authority. I’ll ask you again but in a different way. How do you know all the books in your Bible are actually the inspired Word of God?

Concerning the infallibility questions, NO! I’m not infallible and I don’t believe any one is including any of your popes. There’s nothing in Scripture that tells us to believe that! In fact, Peter was called by Jesus 'dull" and “satan”, denied Jesus three times and Paul had to rebuke him.

Than you don’t believe the Bible Ed. There are billions of people who believe Matthew 16:18 -
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

That’s the infallibility your interpretations are missing but it’s infallibility none the less (remember the oak tree)… given by Jesus himself… backed by billions who agree. You’ve already admitted this is all it takes to be a valid interpretation. According to your own theology, it is correct.

I already pointed you to Isaiah 22:19-25 where Jesus quoted. From there we can see this is a passing on of authority, which again billions agree upon. You seem to be misunderstanding the gift of infallibility. Jesus did not say the human side of His Church was infallible yet he gave the keys to 1 single authority and pronounced the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

Yes the Popes can and do indeed make mistake upon mistake in their daily lives but when Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail, he meant it. When we are taught, on matters of faith and morals, Jesus’ Church CANNOT be wrong. Do you believe Jesus? Catholics simply take Him at His Word.

Oh and yes Peter, handpicked by Jesus, denied Him 3 times but after that Jesus also asked Peter 3 times if he loved Him. And upon answering yes, Jesus commanded him 3 times to feed His sheep. That’s a perfect example of the human side of Jesus’ Church being made infallible by Jesus’ authority. Without Him we are nothing! Are you catching on?

 

[krakee]

Ed: Condider this:
In the fifteenth century there were men who each claimed to be pope. Later the three were all deposed by the Council of Constance. Yet, pope Gregory XII one of the three is listed on official lists as a legitimate popes------In compliance with Trent, pope Sixtus V, set up a commision to revive the Vulgate but, impatient with its progress, took the task into his own hands and published on May 2,1590, a version so full blunders that it had to be withdrawn. But a copy of it still exists in a Lodon museum.------If I told you that I once was Santa Clause without any official documentation to back up that claim, would you believe me?

Ed it looks like your running out of excuses. How many TRUE Popes can there be? Jesus appointed 1. Aside from that anyone can claim the Papacy and many have. In fact I’m the Pope Ed, did you know that? That’s more believable than you being Santa Clause anyway. What would the true Pope do? And don’t forget, the Pope is only infallible on matters of faith and morals, as Jesus established. Aside from that, he’s a human being in which anyone, including Paul, can rebuke. Did you know Pope John Paul II went to confession once a week? ONCE A WEEK. Man that’s 4 times more than I TRY to go and I think once a month is exceptional. Do you find yourself argumentative with your family at times? Do you miss the graces Ed?

Out of courtesy, I responded to your first post, but hereafter don’t expect me to respond to three full pages of posts which has little to do with this thread. ED O.

I won’t be disappointed, I actually expected that. Anyway, if you feel like being even more courteous, my question which still hasn’t been answered is:

Are you, Ed, an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

God Bless.

Matthew K. (krakee)

 

[izoid]

Where is baptism in this passage? The water is referring to the word of God, that cleansing agent which sanctifies sinners (Eph. 5:25; John 15:3; 17:3).

Where is baptism in this passage? Regeneration is the new birth, but where is baptism? It is not there, and as a matter of fact, water is not even mentioned in the passage. The washing element in this passage, instead of being water, is the Holy Ghost Himself. Water is not mentioned, only a washing of the New Birth, which, according to 1 Pet. 1:23 and James 1:18 takes place through the word of God.

Now the problem with using this is that the way in which it was written demonstrates that Peter was obviously well aware that his words are open to dangerous misuse.

This is why, as soon as they are out of his mouth, as it were, he qualifies them by the paranthetical statement, lest we take them the wrong way. You seem to have missed that entirely.

In verse 21 he does say, “Baptism now saves you” - and because that sounds like the water has a saving effect in and of itself, he adds immediately, “Not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

So the point is this: “When I speak of baptism saving,” Peter is saying, “I don’t mean that the water, immersing the body and cleansing the flesh, is of any saving effect; what I mean is that, *insofar as baptism is *“an appeal to God for a good conscience,” (or is “a pledge of a good conscience toward God”), it saves.”

Baptism is simply an expression of the heart’s “appeal to God.” Baptism is a calling on God. It is a way of saying to God with our whole body, “I trust you to take me into Christ like Noah was taken into the ark, and to make Jesus the substitute for my sins and to bring me through these waters of death and judgment into new and everlasting life through the resurrection of Jesus my Lord.”

This is the sense that I get from the text.

And besides, where is the new birth? To equate salvation and the new birth is to do damage to the integrity of the Scriptures as a whole.

Again, where is the New birth? A baptism of repentance is performed *on the grounds of *what Christ has done for us on the cross - namely providing redemption for the forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7).

No new birth mentioned . . . again. You really need to stay disciplined in your word studies, especially when attempting to demonstrate scriptural parallelism. This list is sloppy, because there is no correlation to the new birth running through these passages.

Being baptize for the forgiveness of sins is a wonderful thing.

But are we forgiven because we are baptized, or are we baptized because we are forgiven?

It all depends on how you understand the term “for.”

We are baptized [because we have been] forgiven our sins - (Protestant view) :yup:

Or we are baptized [in order that we might be] forgiven our sins - (Catholic view) :nope:

The term “for” can either refer to the idea of “in order that” or it can refer to the idea “because of” or “on the grounds of.” Both are used in Scripture. The debate then, comes down to how Peter meant it, and how Luke is using this term in Acts 2:38.

Here is another example of the different ways in which we can understand this term:

Jesse James is wanted “for” robbery.

This could mean that he is wanted *because he has *committed robbery - (the Protestant view) :yup:

Or this could mean that he is wanted *in order that he might *commit a robbery - (the Catholic view). :nope:

I was anticipating this response, it is the response that MacArthur gives in his commentary on the verse. My challenge to you is to look up the Greek for yourself, do some careful exegesis, not eisegesis. I believed exactly as you did until I set aside my preconceived ideas and approached the Scripture from an exegetical approach.

The Greek word used in this passage and translated “for” is “eis”. It is commonly used in the Scriptures, over 1700 times. It is never, not one time, translated “because of”. It always has a connotation of movement form one place to another.

According to Thayer’s lexigon, eis means “entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, towards, for, among.”

While it is admirable that you defend your position as you do I challenge you to approach scripture fresh. Look at it with new eyes and see where you theology is clouding you interpretation.

THe bottom line is that the word eis is not used in scripture in the way that you outline it to be. It is a false and inaccurate translation and usage of the word.

 

[izoid]

Calvin was a giant of the faith, but he is not Christ, nor the Holy Spirit.

Calvin was a great scholar, who was used mightily of the LORD, but nevertheless he was still a man. Calvin received much light on certain biblical issues that were in dire need of being brought to light in his day. This does not mean that he therefore was infallible in all of his interpretations.

And so although I do repect him, and hold him in high esteem, I nevertheless reserve the right to seek the Scriptures afresh concerning everything he, and all the rest of the godly men of the past, have handed down to us.

This is simply the responsible thing to do, as we are commanded by the Scriptures to “test all things, and hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thes. 5:21).

I take this exhortation seriously, for the apostle Paul actually commended the Bereans for putting *his very own teachings *to the test. “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11)

Paul also gave us strict warning to guard against the religious tendencies of putting one man over against another. He commanded us never to put any man, for that matter, above that which is written. “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, so that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6).

But thank you for you comment!

And this is the protestant tragedy. Each man will interpret the Bible by his own enlightenment. He can then develop whatever doctrine he chooses. Your interpretation, lead by the “Holy Spirit”, is completely at odds with the interpretations of Luther and Calvin and many other “Spirit lead” men.

I thank you for this honest post as it sums up everything that is wrong with the reformation. There is no authority, not even the Holy Spirit.

 

[MariaG]

Hi Kevin,
Here’s my, as well as, other Protestant’s interpretation of John 3:5 is as follows: —

…

We are baptized [because we have been] forgiven our sins - (Protestant view) :yup:

Or we are baptized [in order that we might be] forgiven our sins - (Catholic view) :nope:

At least Ed doesn’t seem to imply that ALL Protestants interpret John 3:5 in the same manner as you do.

In fact, Lutherans as well as other Sacramental Protestants, as well as a going number of “bible Christians” who believe in baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence of Christ in communion, would completely disagree with you.

While there are SOME Protestant who interpret scripture as you both do, there are some who agree with the Catholic Church and the interpretation of John 3. Some through scripture alone and the leading of the Holy Spirit, others through scripture, careful examination of the beliefs of the Early Church, and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[bluelake]

Catholics do not reject John 3. All of the Sacred Scriptures is a basis of our Catholic Faith. How can you say that a part of the Sacred Scriptures we do not believe in? We take all of it in total no more no less.

RC,
I’m happy to hear you say this.
why would anyone reject God’s word?
Please read Jn.3:36, those who seem to have a problem with this, please tell us why.

God bless,
bluelake

 

[MariaG]

RC,
I’m happy to hear you say this.
why would anyone reject God’s word?
Please read Jn.3:36, those who seem to have a problem with this, please tell us why.

God bless,
bluelake

John 3:36Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him."l]

In this whole thread, who has had a problem with this

 

[DomineUtVideum]

A challenge to my separated brethren: Please provide the name of one Early Church Father or theologian who rejected the clear teaching of baptismal regeneration in Jn 3 PRIOR to the 16th century.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by panevino
Don’t apologies Ed I think u misunderstood what i wrote.
I read ur post 886
it did not include a response to my interpretation of John 3:6

what is your opinion of my interpretation of the flesh/spirit discussion.
It makes relates to the rebirth of the person from ways of flesh to spirit.
As alluded to in several verses.

See my post 892

Panevino, I read your post 892. Now concerning Jn 3:6. You have your mind set that v5 means baptism because you were told that so, yes, in that way v6 could relate to v5 but what do you do with v7 & v8 because in v9 Nicodemus still doesn’t understand anything about baptism and that’s the end of their dialog. I told you and showed you in Scripture that “water” there is a metaphor alluding to people. But you can’t show me any Scripture that the “water” there alludes to baptism. Water there could mean swimming pool or shower, etc. The only reason you think it’s baptism is because that is what you were told. You also have your mind set that some how the Spirit comes upon a person during baptism which is NOT true. That’s why you connect water with Spirit. There’s no Scripture to support that. Allow me to approach this from another way. You think that “water” baptism forgives sins which it absolutely DOES NOT! When you commit a sin do you sin against the water? NO! You sin against God. So It’s God that has to forgive sins and it’s not done thru water but by Jesus’ BLOOD shed on the cross. That’s why at the last supper Jesus said, “This is BLOOD of the new covenant which is poured out for many for the FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” He never said and “Water” baptism too! So which is it? It can’t be both!

If “water” baptism forgives sins, then all the people who lived prior to the N.T. times because they had no baptism would have gone to hell. The thief on the cross wasn’t baptized and got saved. Jesus went down to the prisons and preached to those who died in the flood. Why? For those who will believe in him will be saved without “water” baptism. “water” baptism is a sign of turning to God (repentance) When one turns to God in repentance what do you do? You ask God to forgive you for every sin that comes to your mind, that’s confessing and washing your sins away but they are NOT forgiven. There’s nothing in the “water” baptism that forgives sins or makes one holy. A good example is Cornelius’ group when they heard Peter preached the gospel and BELIEVED the holy Sprit came upon them. They were saved by belief. The Holy Spirit won’t come upon a unsaved person. If you want holiness, you get it by BELIEF that Jesus forgave our sins by His BLOOD not water. Then Cornelius’ group were later baptized. WHY? to show their repentance, when a sin came to mind they confessed it knowing that Jesus’ BLOOD atoned for it, That’s confessing or washing your sins away. Rev 1:5, clearly states,“To Him who loves us and freed us from our sins by His BLOOD”.

When Peter preached in Acts 2:38, He combines belief ,repentance, baptism and H.S. into one sentence making it appear as though the “water” baptism forgives sins. That’s because you jerked that one verse out of the context of the chapter. Read what he preached before that statement and you’ll find that the people were cut to heart by what they heard about Jesus that He died for our sins. When you continue down to verse 41 it says, “Those who accepted his message were baptized”. What message? The gospel. When the jailer asked Paul what must he do to be saved? He did not say get baptized! According to you that’s all would be needed since you believe that in “water” baptism one becomes born again and one recieves the Holy Spirit. Paul said believe in Jesus.(his Blood is what forgives sins) They were then baptized. WHY? to show their repentance. That’s why Jesus says in Mark 16:16, " Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved but whoever does not believe will be condemned." He didn’t say whoever is not baptized will be condemned. Belief is what saves, and forgives our sins while “water” baptism follows belief to show repentance. That’s why they always appear together. ED .O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted byDomine UtVideum
A challenge to my separated brethren: Please provide the name of one Early Church Father or theologian who rejected the clear teaching of baptismal regeneration in Jn 3 PRIOR to the 16th century

My Scripture response to that is: Mat.4:4, Jesus speaks, “It is written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Please Note, it doesn’t say by every word that comes out of the mouth of Early church Fathers. If you’ll go several posts back, you’ll find that every one of the early church fathers listed there misquoted Jesus’ statement in John 3:5, from “born of water” to “born AGAIN of water” They or anyone else are NOT permitted to change what Jesus said. My Scripture reference is Proverbs 30:6, “Do not add to His words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.” In Rev. 22:18, it’s more severe there as follows;“If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God shall add to him the plaques described in this book.” In plain English don’t fool with God’s Holy Word and they all did, as well as the Catholic Duoay/ Rhiems bible. Prior to the 16th century the printing press was not yet invented, Bibles were hand copied making them very limited. As God would have it, the very first book that came off the newly invented printing press was the Bible. People were able to read it for themselves as you now can too rather than having to rely on what the early church Fathers said. ED O.